Weird article. I don't know enough to add info. And I'm too tired to edit it. But it's a very strange article, written by people who know what they are talking about - but don't write particularly well, and are have pretty obvious POV's. (e.g. "the then clean shaven Norman Lamm"????- WTF) Guedalia D'Montenegro

There is already an article about him. It's poorly written. Even though it is clearly adapted from the JE - by someone who doesnt know that the 14th century is from 1300-1399 - it manages to write in a highly anglicized form of yeshivish. Also, I chanced on the Maharil article - also poorly written. I think I have a new mission. Medieval Ashkenaz will have to be wikicleaned by us. BTW - remember the Talmud article way back before we got involved. It may stll suck - but its so much better now.

Very interesting topic. There are some scholars who reject the "proto-criticism" theory abt Ibn Ezra, and iterpret his "sodot" as kabbalistic rather than critical. A great Ibn Ezra to prove this appears at Gen. 36:31, v'Eleh ha'Milachim. For purposes of our discussion - Ibn Ezra's conclusions are what are important. But it's the other parts of this comment by Ibn Ezra which you will enjoy! I look forward to hearing from you soon.Guedalia D'Montenegro PS - more sources to follow.

Thanks. I guess :-)Guedalia D'Montenegro 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the magic of Dr. Joseph Kaminetsky? I don't know, do you? Guedalia D'Montenegro —Preceding comment was added at 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I agree with your last change in the Talmud article. Many of the talmudic baraitot are found in the Halachic Midrashim, such as sifra, etc. Are not the Sifra, Sifre, Mekhilta compendiums of "baraitot"?

Perhaps I missed intent and purpose of your recent edit...was it to clarify that many of the baraitot quoted in the talmud are known only from the gemara? Has there been any study of this? my unlearned belief is that the majority of tannaitic opinions quoted in the talmud are found in the tosefta, at least rivaling the mishnaic statements...as you have excepted the "tosefta" I guess you agree. Then of the rest - the question is where are they found. Are you confident that most or many of these are not found in the Midrashim quoted above? I guess a related question is when were the collections known as Mekhilta (and the like) compiled? Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my recent edits in Talmud. Are they helpful? If not, Please change or revert. Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk)

Amoraic Tradition - I meant that this typr of baraita is not known thorough written compendium, but rather by amoraic tradition (quoting the tannaitic statement). I did not mean that the statement is of Amoraic invention and attributed to a tanna -although that happens sometimes too. Also - frequently you get a string of names going from amoraim (or late tannaim) back to tannaitic statements. This I would refer to an "amoraic tradition"...know what I mean son?Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebbe, I have been reading about tosefta some. Seems that there is great confusion as regards the origins of our tosefta. From what I have read, seems that the modern scholars think that the Tosefta, as a distinct book, is quite a late work. Elman thinks that it was compiled after the amoraic period to consolidate a large amount of oral "imra" (baraitot) traditions. On the other hand, these traditions may themselves be very old (early tannaitic - Shamma Freidman) or late (Neusner). Truly, shiviim panim la-torah.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. The article has come a very long way indeed, and mostly due to your influence. I was drawn to Septuagint only because of misinformation about the Vulgate contained therein. I deleted the obvious errors, but refrained from doing more, in part because I feared the article was not salvagible, but mostly because I know so little about it. I have since learned much more, and therefore I more appreciate all that you have done for it. It is good to see you back at it, after your relative absence some months ago. Rwflammang (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a short period of improvement last year, this article has been regressing over the past few months. I am upset about it - but have no will to improve it. The critical method of study section has been wrecked and POV'd. Why can't people just stick to describing the evolution? I need your encouragement before wading in again.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "rv, even though this article isn't much better without the vandalism".

Are you knowledgeable in Kabbalah? If so I hope you will consider editing the article to improve it. I have removed all the non-Jewish sections from the article, and moved them to their own articles. I have also tried to make some points easier to understand. But, although Kabbalah fascinates me, I am not particularly knowledgeable in the subject. Neither am I a skillful writer. It is my hope that someone qualified will do the work necessary to improve the article in ways that I can not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I actually don't remember making that change. As long as you have some knowledge in the area, go ahead and make whatever changes are needed. Thanks. Dfass (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit summary and addition to the subsection "Midrash" suggested that the "summary" of Midrash was not mainstream. Perhaps this should be reflected in the "summary" paragraph? Not my speciality or I would do it. Another possibility is deleting the current paragraph and substituting a shorter one. Student7 (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the recent edit you made to Amen has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 02:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a lot of content from the article. Thats why it got reverted. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 02:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you were involved in a discussion about the attempted removal of the Torah section from the Kabbalah: Primary Texts article. I put the following message on that article's talk page:

As a consequence of the effort to remove the important Torah section of this article, it is my intention to return it to the Kabbalah article from which this article was taken.

I hope that you will support the planed move. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hanina, you wrote: The style guide is just that, a guide, so sentence #2 will suffice. "Jewish Rabbinic literature" was redundant, unless there be non-Jewish rabbis and their writings.

• FYI, there will certainly be people who read that article who have no knowledge of Judaism, and for them it is not redundant. Also, it is for the benefit of those with little or no knowledge of Judaism that the articles link to the Judaism article, and not for the benefit of the very knowledgeable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi, Dr., Ich hob a shailo... What is the origin of the Cantilation notes (Tropes) printed in the Chumash? Were these developed by the masoretes? Are they related to the vowels/pointing? Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policing the kooks is one of the most important roles here in wikiland. I've been watching some of your more "bra(c)[z]en" edits meself. Wonderful!Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some additions to the Amen article. Essentially someone has decided to make the article into a kind of "R' Shimon Eider" work with heavy use of halachic material. The writing is ok - but overall the Jewish Usage section has become burdensome to read and significantly less academic. Should we (you or I) bother to step in this one?Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom -- I'm a bit surprised at the apparent disturbance made by the addition of the halachic overview of amen. Why was there even an initial issue with this? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that the the halakhic overview has not been unduly truncated; and that it has perhaps benefited in readability from my good-faith interventions.

The "disturbance" stems from 2 factors. Firstly, our colleague feared that the article would become more of a manual than an article, and would thus become less relevant to an encyclopedia and belong more properly to WikiHow. Secondly, as a perusal of the "Amen" talkpage will show, editors are on edge because of warring (unrelated to your contributions). חנינא (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your take on the idea of splitting the Halachic rules into a separate article? I would emphasise that as far as I know nobody is advocating removal of this information, which as far as I'm concerned absolutely belongs on Wikipedia; I think it's a style thing to avoid an article being mostly about one aspect of a subject. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one can see from the discussion here and on the article talkpage, there's no clear consensus here. My opinion is still that the "Amen in Judaism" section should retain an abbreviated discussion of halakhah, as that is essential for describing "Amen in Judaism," which topic is inherently relevant to the article. חנינא (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with much of Rabbinic literature this is a tricky topic to write about. The state of the original sources and paucity of outside sources makes it difficult to reach conclusions that have consensus. On the other hand, the differences in scholarly opinion are so numerous and sometimes so great that to include them in the article might make it a burden to read. I tried to clean up the Oral Law article a bit today (despite not having most of my sources available) but I may not have the stamina to make it a truly useful article.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk)

I'm amazed this anon just keeps on pushing his version that is unsupported by policy or consensus. The page is now semiprotected for a month. Let me know how things go. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you should be amazed at, is how dishonest this turns out to be... This fellow does not seem to know what an exclusive OR means, logically speaking. The acronym RaShaSh cannot be referring to both at the same time. The term is always used only to refer to one of them. The ashkenazim (and those affiliated with them) won their edit war. Certainly you feel proud of yourselves. 59.92.60.65 (talk)

and those affiliated with them? Oh yes, the Spanish and Portuguese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.76.141 (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with their shitah of study. Or you know what I'm talking about and you're playing the fool. Or you do not know... and you would then be a fool, simple guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.218.232 (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Law given to Moses at Sinai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mesorah. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]